Contrary to current popular Christian belief, the NT and Jesus are/were not supporters of family values. Where do Christians get their exalted view of the "Christian" family? The NT contains numerous acts of anti-family values. Within the NT, Jesus treats his mother and siblings with such disrespect and a total lack of affection that it should be deemed immoral. We can also assume that he never married or had any children, (thank goodness!) Jesus instructs those who wish to be his followers to abandon and hate their own families.

The attitude of Jesus toward women in general is ambiguous in the extreme. At times, he seems to regard them as they exist under the Mosaic Law. Jesus upholds the law. Sexism on his part cannot be condoned. He supposedly came to earth as the moral example for all time to come. Although mistreatment of women might have been the custom of the day, Jesus' behavior standards should surely have been timeless and they were anything but.

In Matthew alone, there are nineteen instances of anti-family values. (redacted from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, Woes to the Women the Bible Tells Me So by Annie Laurie Gaylor, and The Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible by Ruth Hurmence Green)

In Matthew:

1. The Holy Ghost knocks up a young woman, Mary. 1:18

2. Jesus called out to two fishermen to be his disciples and they actually left their father mending the fishing nets without even a 'good-bye'. 4:21,22

3. Jesus came to uphold the OT law, not reform it. 5:17-18. So Jesus supports all the anti-family and misogynistic laws in the OT.

4. Mutilate yourself if you "lust in your heart." 5:28-29. So if you lust after any woman you must pluck out your eyes so you won't go to hell. Another misogynistic passage making women (wife, sister, daughter, mother, etc. look bad to men).

6. Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

7. Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

8. Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" 10:34-36

9. Jesus warns us not to love our parents or children too much. We have to make sure that we always love him (who we don't even know existed) more than our family. 10:37

10. Jesus was very uncivil when his mother and his brothers waited at the edge of a crowd to speak to him, posing a question to his disciples: 'Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" and indicating that the disciples were now his family. Then he added that all who do the will of God, "the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." 12:47-49

11. Jesus and his followers are criticized by the Pharisees and scribes for not washing their hands before eating. Instead of addressing their concern, Jesus goes on the attack, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and , 'Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.'" (Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) He then calls them names, "You hypocrites!" He attacks them for not killing disobedient children when all they quizzed him on was their dirty hands when they eat. 15:4-7

13. In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. 18:25

14. "One flesh" marriage, implying no divorce allowed. 19:6

15. Eunuchs be praised! If you can be one then go for it! This is a sure guarantee of no-fatherhood. 19:12

16. "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters of father or mother or children or fields, for my name's sake, will receive a hundred fold and will inherit eternal life." Moral here is abandon your family and your children for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. 19:29

17. Jesus tells us to "call no man your father upon the earth." Not even dear old dad? How can we "honor our father" if we refuse to call him our father? 23:9

18. "Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days." Why? Does God especially hate pregnant and nursing women? 24:19

19. Jesus tells polygamy parable without censure when he compares the kingdom of heaven to ten virgins who went to meet their bridegroom. 25:1 10 wives for 1 man is not a modern Christian family value.

Shall I go on to Mark? Luke? John? Acts? Romans? And so forth?

My point is that Jesus is no role model and that he was anti-family. So why do Christians push this crap about "Christian family values" when these "values" are non-existent in the bible but are really innate values within them?

Logged

Faith is nice but doubt will get you an education!Theism: the virus that infects then disables the brain's bullshit detectorJoin FFRF.org

You can write anything you want about a fictional character,but for gods son they sure made him out to be a prick

Logged

Bow down my hairy children and behold the world I have laid out for you,walk away from your electronic devices and listen to the sounds of nature. Tear from you the ties that bind you to your pathetic existance,walk back into the woods with me and we shall feast on the bounty I have left Sasquatch

What a COMPLETE misrepresentation of verses! You have spewed so much trash here, I'd have to spend a week of my life explaining this to you in context of the Bible and the times. Because of your "hate mail," I'll simply pass on the whole. But I have chosen a simple one to make my point. You really need to join a Bible study if you want to attempt to assert something from the Bible. At least have some clue as to what the passage is about.

Truth: Since I have taught this very subject, I'll share some of the verbiage from one of my Sunday School lessons from months ago that was comprised from many sources:

The Jewish Wedding Festival:The Jewish marriage consisted of three parts. The first of these was the engagement. Most often, this was arranged by the fathers of the bride and groom. This amounted to a contract of marriage. Here the couple had little involvement.

Secondly, we had the betrothal. This phase could last for weeks, months, or even a year. The purpose was to give the groom time to establish himself. To enter into the betrothal period, the bride and groom exchanged vows in the presence of their friends and family. At this point, they were considered legally married, yet they did not live together. And this is why Mary's pregnancy was an issue in her betrothal. If the groom died during this time, the woman would be considered a widow!

Thirdly, there was the wedding feast. At the end of the betrothal period, the Wedding Feast occurred. This could last as long as a week! Here a feast and multiple celebrations occurred which involved the entire community. It began when the groom accompanied by his groomsmen came to the bride's house. And according to the culture of Christ's day, the time of the groom's arrival would not have been set. Thus, the bride and her maids would ready themselves and then wait — sometimes for hours. Now upon meeting the bride and her maids, the groom's party joined with the bride's party and together they paraded through the streets proclaiming that the wedding feast was about to begin. Now this usually occurred in the late evening, and thus we see the need for torches/lamps. In fact, notice not only would these lamps illumine the dark path but they also would have served to identify the wedding party. At the end of the feast period, a close friend of the groom took the bride's hand and placed it in the groom's, and the couple would be escorted to a room to be left alone together.

A follow-on question you might ask: Why 10 bridesmaids and not just 2, since clearly 1/2 did the right thing and 1/2 did the wrong thing?There is an interesting study about the number ten. There was always something conclusive about this number. God gave 10 Commandments. The quorum for a synagogue meeting was always 10. Ten people were required for the rite of circumcision. Ten people were the minimum number you could have to keep the Passover. Ten witnesses were required for a marriage contract. Boaz had 10 witnesses when he married Ruth (4:2). So it was not unusual that Jesus chose 10 maidens for this parable.

Edit: Added reference to my Sunday School lesson comprised from many sources. Unfortunately, I don't remember how this was all put together to give the proper references outside of my lesson. Sorry, that's the best I can do.

......My point is that Jesus is no role model and that he was anti-family. ....

Great post mommykicksbutt. Even if several data points get blown away the trend is strong - it's a legacy from a nasty bygone made-made culture trapped in a set of documents painted into a corner in time.

Tbright, it'd be quicker if you passed out those magic decoder rings that let you know exactly what parts of the bible can't be taken literally, which parts are to be and which parts require the additional explanation of time frame references...

BTW: Better keep that thing fired up. I'm building my own post that I'm sure is gonna send you into fits.

BTW: Better keep that thing fired up. I'm building my own post that I'm sure is gonna send you into fits.

So it's your INTENTION to offend Christians?..... and you aren't looking at the possibility that Christianity, faith in Jesus Christ, is the only way to heaven, and that heaven is a real place, and that God is real?

Do I believe in jesus (notice the small "j" the spell checker hates that so I have to force the issue), heaven, and the rest;

I have no belief in your myths. In fact I reject them on principal. I am rapidly beginning to lose the quite acceptance of others, I use to have due to recent reading, and people like you. Feel free to take that however you want.

-I spent tonight debating a muslim and christian on the existence of god because I dared to bring a book to work. While they openly hated on another's beliefs they had no trouble tag teaming me. Shame they lost so bad.

B: And what if next year we prove god doesn't exist? (The guy who asks the "what if" question wins, if he has a decent question.)

You raise an intresting point. It's an shame you don't even realize it. I'm not angry at god, I don't think he exists. I'm angry at people like you for the way they try to push god down my throat. If god decided to descend down and show me he was real, unlike when I was theist (twice) I would accept him. But he's never done anything to show me the possibility he's real.

And just for the record If I was you I would be very afraid there's a god. How much of the bible do you ignore to form you opinions? say witches, slaves, or shellfish? As someone who doesn't belief in the bible I wouldn't be in trouble if it's the work of man. You would. What do you wanna make a bet that people who conform to the fresh word of god get a better shot than those who argue wrong bible quotes?

You raise an intresting point. It's an shame you don't even realize it. I'm not angry at god, I don't think he exists. I'm angry at people like you for the way they try to push god down my throat.

I'm not trying to push anything on you. Believe or don't believe whatever you want. If you aren't interested, I don't have anything to say to you anyway. The OP misrepresented every Bible passage asserted. My response post was a counter to that one. If you were interested in hearing from me, you shouldn't have addressed me directly. Then when I respond to you, you claim I'm trying to "push God down your throat." At least be honest about the situation. With that, I have nothing further to say to you, except Good Day!

What a COMPLETE misrepresentation of verses! You have spewed so much trash here, I'd have to spend a week of my life explaining this to you in context of the Bible and the times. Because of your "hate mail," I'll simply pass on the whole. But I have chosen a simple one to make my point. You really need to join a Bible study if you want to attempt to assert something from the Bible. At least have some clue as to what the passage is about.

The parables and examples were based on local times and culture. The truth of those parables/examples is timeless.

Okay, since the "truth" of some parables can only be arrived at through concurrent study of material ("local times and culture") that relies on extra-biblical transmission and interpretation by 'experts' such as tbright, I'm reasonably confident in saying that this is yet another example that the bible, as a "timeless" communication system, is unintelligently designed.

At face value, in this day and age, Mathew 25 conveys an unambiguous acceptance of polygamy. "Virgins" does not equal "bridesmaids" - ask any normal young male. And from relatively modern norms of language for a man to "know" young girls implies something a lot stronger than just "recognise". Translations may be letting us down - again whose problem is that?

Taken together with tbright's version of the cultural context, I'm open to thinking the polygamy connotation may not be accurate. But some other scholar may produce a different context/interpretation again - so my mind will remain open. Nevertheless Mathew 25 carries a fairly strange emphasis on the "virgins" and also sexual nuance - 5 girls behind a locked door with "sir" and another 5 eager to get in. Why are 10 virgins likened unto the "kingdom of heaven" in the first place? Male audience? And the notion that 5 virgins were denied entry to the party for a very trivial oversight in the context of pre-party excitement comes across to me with the same vibe typical of a modern-day 'blonde joke'.

At this stage I'm picking this parable for a "sex sells" approach. A guy talking to other guys in a guy sort of way to big-note his powers of attraction. And the whole thing reported by a guy stuck in those male hegemonic times.

So the parable fails to impress me as the word of a God I could respect. As far as I'm concerned it stays on the list of teachings with an anti-woman sentiment. Happy to listen to alternative views.

Your claim of it being myth doesn't make it so. What if it turns out in 5 years we can prove that God exists and that the Bible was correct? You wouldn't accept it? Are that angry at God?

How would we prove the Bible is correct, in 5 years or 50?

When god comes to me, personally, and reveals himself to me, then I'll believe. Not YOUR revelation, not some badly written book, which has to be examined in minute detail to discover hidden meanings, and not some emotional rantings by others. And, not some ambiguous healings by Benny Hinn.

Jesus came to fulfill the OT law, not abolish it. That means all the heinous commandments of the OT must be followed?

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

That means, among other things, you must not boil a kid in its mother's milk.

You didn't really do anything except confirm that my question was valid, tbright. If the bible is indeed timeless truth, then why does it need to be evaluated based on the times? Did God not know that it would be used today? Why didn't Jesus give a parable about nukes?

Logged

If there be gods we cannot help them, but we can assist our fellow-men. - Robert Ingersoll

People should reject God defiantly in order to pour out all their loving solicitude upon mankind - Albert Camus

What a COMPLETE misrepresentation of verses! You have spewed so much trash here, I'd have to spend a week of my life explaining this to you in context of the Bible and the times. Because of your "hate mail," I'll simply pass on the whole. But I have chosen a simple one to make my point. You really need to join a Bible study if you want to attempt to assert something from the Bible. At least have some clue as to what the passage is about.

Not trash but truth, look up the verses yourself. And do not even try to lecture me sonny boy, I taught child and adult religious education for years. I probably got more time on the toilet than you have in the pulpit. I feel so sorry for you. So blinded by your faith that you refuse to see the truth, in this case the truth seems to strike you as offencive. If the shoe fits... good, if it hurts... even better! Now try reading your bible books independently as a piece of literature and not as dogmatic faith.

Logged

Faith is nice but doubt will get you an education!Theism: the virus that infects then disables the brain's bullshit detectorJoin FFRF.org